CITI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 10, 1999

• 1540

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I'll now call the meeting of our committee to order. Ahead of us is the order of the day, the adoption of the sixth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. You have a copy of that in front of you.

Would you like me to read the report?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: I would like the clerk to read the report, please.

The Clerk of the Committee: The report reads as follows:

The Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has the honour to present its sixth report.

Your Sub-committee met on Wednesday, March 4, 1999, to consider the future business of the Committee, and has agreed to make the following recommendations:

1.—That pursuant to its Order of Reference of March 1, 1999 relating to Bill C-63, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship, Nine (9) Members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Four (4) from the Opposition Parties and Five (5) from the Liberal Party including the Chair, be authorized to hold public hearings in Six Cities, namely, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Halifax from March 17 to 26, 1999 and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee.

2.—That the Committee schedule meetings on Bill C-63, An Act respecting Canadian citizenship, on the following days: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 - the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Citizenship Federation; Thursday, March 11, 1999 - the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

3.—That notwithstanding the resolution adopted on October 21, 1999, the Committee reimburse One (1) representative of an organization, if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses in accordance with guidelines provided by the Board of Internal Economy.

The Chair: I would just like to make one typographical correction. It is October 21, 1997.

Is there a mover for the motion? It's moved by Mr. Martin. Is there debate on the motion?

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): I'd just like some clarification, if I could.

First of all I'd like to say I'm excited at the prospect of having public hearings on this bill. Unfortunately that hasn't really happened, and it's an opportunity that I'm pleased to see has been taken by this committee.

What I would like to hear about from the committee before we vote on this is the format of the public hearings. Then I'd also like to talk about each individual venue, how it will be set up, how business will be conducted, and that type of thing. We are talking about the expenditure of over $100,000 being proposed, and it's really important that taxpayers' money is guarded carefully.

I think it's a great idea; I just want some detail on it, please.

The Chair: As I understand it, we will invite witnesses, and potential witnesses who have heard of these hearings taking place will inform the clerk of the committee. Of course the committee as a whole will decide on the list of witnesses to be invited and to be approved, should they request an appearance before the committee, unless the committee would like to delegate that authority to the chair in consultation with the clerk of the committee.

That in general has been the procedure in other committees for hearing witnesses before a public hearing of the committee, and I see no potential difference from that approach, as chair of the committee, unless other members of the committee have a vision of that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I certainly would like to.... When I saw “public hearings”, I assumed we were talking about open public hearings, not just by invitation. Look at what SCONDVA did, starting, I think, shortly after Christmas last year. Over six months, we had what I believe were open hearings. Anyone was welcome, although the group targeted certainly was those in the forces and those who worked on bases.

It wasn't required that people were invited ahead of time. They were allowed to come, and they would register with the clerk if they wanted to speak. The committee heard from people who had an interest in the issue. I would say that if we're talking about public hearings, that's the kind of format we should be looking at.

• 1545

I recommend that we have truly public hearings, where we do offer an opportunity to members of the public who have an interest to approach the committee, either just before or when the committee is hearing, and allow people to really have their say on this issue.

The Chair: The chair would like a clarification to focus the debate on this issue. Is it then your submission that the committee will not have an opportunity in advance to know who the witnesses are, and that there will be no consensus among the committee on who the witnesses ought to be? Is that your submission?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, that's right. We could also work so that we'd have a limited amount of time for people who are representatives of groups. It's important we hear from them, although we can do that in Ottawa just fine in most cases.

The Chair: Is it further your submission that should that approach not be adopted by the committee during this meeting, your predisposition is not to go travelling with the committee, or are you flexible?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, no, I couldn't agree to travel if we're not going to have open public hearings.

The Chair: So Mr. Benoit has indicated his position very clearly to the committee. Are there any discussions on travel?

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Actually, I was going to ask another question about venues. I'd asked about—

The Chair: Can we visit the venue later? Let's get to the process.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, sure.

The Chair: In other words, if we cannot progress beyond one step, there is no point in discussing the other steps.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Oh, okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, maybe you can help me. I don't know if the subcommittee discussed this kind of format, which would seem to be unusual in terms of a committee process.

Certainly from my experience, going out and holding a series of town hall meetings, which in essence is what it would amount to, and more or less politicizing the discussion of the bill frankly could lead to chaos. I'm not sure the committee would succeed in going through the bill and getting the advice that the committee would look for in having a hearing. Simply allowing it....

I certainly would agree that any meetings that take place, either here in Ottawa or in other cities, should be open public meetings. But there has to be some kind of format, some kind of appointment system, and an opportunity for our research staff, as they have done with today's witnesses, to do some kind of analysis of the issues that would impact on those particular groups or individuals. Just going out in a sort of Wild West road show is not something I'm interested in participating in.

I have a further problem, and that is a question. Is it the normal practice of this committee and all committees that if we hold hearings in Ottawa and we have people from other cities across the country who wish to come and are accepted as witnesses, we pay their travel costs and accommodation costs to bring them to Ottawa?

The Chair: As to the latter question, yes, it is a practice of the committee. In fact we have a standing resolution to that effect.

Secondly, as to whether the type of question raised by Mr. Benoit was raised at the steering committee, regrettably Mr. Benoit was not able to be at the steering committee, of which he was a member when this item was being discussed.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The other issue that I have frankly serious concern about is whether or not we are going to deal with the relevance of the issue, or whether we're going to go through the game-playing we've already seen and fight immigration battles, when in fact we're discussing a citizenship bill. I'm not interested in providing a stage for Mr. Benoit or anybody else from the Reform Party to politicize something and deal with issues that are totally unrelated to the issue at hand, which is the citizenship act.

And I personally have a further problem in that I'm already travelling on other issues, and I've looked at the schedule and I don't think I can make one of them. Other members of this standing committee might fall into that same category. So you would wind up with members subbing in from the Liberal ranks who would be members who are not on this committee on a regular basis and would not have the benefit perhaps of the detailed study of the bill that those of us on the committee would enjoy.

• 1550

I have no difficulty having the hearings; I think it's a good idea. I would prefer to have them here and to bring the witnesses to us, both from a personal scheduling perspective—a scheduling perspective that I would guess is shared by many of my colleagues—and due to the fact that I'm really interested in dealing with the citizenship bill, not in hearing about individual members' problems with immigration issues.

I would add that coming from the city I come from, I could probably match anyone on immigration issues in terms of volume and difficulty. If we want to air those problems in some kind of public forum, I don't see us sanctioning that.

So I'm afraid, as a result, I'd be against this motion.

The Chair: So the chair senses that you are opposed to the report, even if the process of selecting witnesses will be in the traditional way, and not in the way Mr. Benoit has suggested.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's right, and I would also add that I'm not opposed—and I want this to be clear—to us hearing from the public. It should be done with some sense of order, and not turned into what, quite frankly, I suspect would be nothing more than political opportunism by the opposition parties to attempt to embarrass this ministry. I won't stand for that.

The Chair: Then perhaps the chair would solicit the opinion of Mr. Martin, being a member of the steering committee that adopted this report.

Would you have any comments in light of what you have heard?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Yes. I would speak strongly in favour of going to the representation by invitation idea, and I would speak strongly against trying to open it up into a free-for-all where anybody can come and vent their opinions about citizenship.

The reason we ask specific groups is that they're the experts in the field. People in the community organize themselves into groups, and those are the groups we should be sending out the invitations to and hearing from.

My first feeling about going on the road was that I wasn't in favour of it, but I yielded to the wishes of the steering committee, who overwhelmingly wanted to take us on a broad cross-country tour. So the Liberal Party representatives, the Bloc member who was there, and I voted unanimously to, as you read in the report, take it on the road and do the representation by invitation.

The Chair: What we are seeing at play of course is the really excellent practice of having the report of the steering committee brought forward at the mother committee, which is the ultimate authority in so far as this issue is concerned.

Let me then suggest something to the committee, for ease of handling this report. Could somebody move to divide this into the three items, or at least separate item 1, so that we can handle it? Because item 3 may not follow, depending on our decision on item 1. So if we can separate item 1 from item 2 and item 3, we will deal with that. The way I see it, if item 1 is adopted, we have to proceed with item 3; if item 1 is not adopted, there is no need to proceed to item 3; and item 2 can stand on its own.

So the chair has suggested that we divide the report into three components for the purpose of trying to arrive at a consensus and vote on this report. Does the committee agree to that approach?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So I will call the vote.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I had asked to speak to the motion.

The Chair: Oh, I see. Maybe I can go to Mr. McNally first and then to you for a second time, or would you like the floor first?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I'd like the floor. I've been here a while.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Benoit. Sorry, I just thought, since you come from the same party....

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, well, I'm sure Mr. McNally would like to speak too.

For the member across the way, Mr. Mahoney, to say that there would be complete disorder if we heard from the public without appointment is complete nonsense. I would have to say the defence committee was the most effective committee I have ever seen operate in this place.

What they did is this. In the mornings they did meet with people who had expertise in the different areas, and that was very productive. In the afternoons and evenings they had an open forum where members of the public could register just before the committee meeting or during the meeting and then take part in the discussion and present their views on the issues.

• 1555

In this case, it would be the citizenship bill. If the debate were straying too far from the citizenship bill, then I think it would be reasonable that the chair would guide that.

If we're going to have public hearings, let's have public hearings. Let's make them real public hearings. I'm all in favour of that, and I think it would be worth travel under that kind of arrangement, where we hear from the experts in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening, in each centre, we have open public hearings. That's just critical.

It's more than time, more than due, that Canadians, not just those with a vested interest.... All Canadians have a vested interest in citizenship, not just those who represent groups, but people who are representing their views and the views of their neighbours and the people in their communities, to some extent.

So I favour this with the exception of the dates. We can't possibly arrange this in that short timeframe. Mr. Mahoney has already expressed that. And we have to get more detail as to the public process.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I echo Mr. Benoit's comments, and I was quite surprised when I walked into the room and heard Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Martin talking about individuals public as though there's some kind of raging mob out there ready to storm the Bastille to make some comments. I can't believe a member of the government would say that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, I did not say that, and I object to the member making accusations that are not based in truth.

Mr. Grant McNally: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Don't lie at committee. You can't do it in the House.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'm hoping he's going to listen here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, don't lie.

An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have an opportunity to speak; I think I have the floor.

The Chair: Obviously people are giving interpretations to words previously used, but as you know, that is the nature of our parliamentary system. Mr. Mahoney has indicated his position. I will only caution members to please quote as strictly as possible, if you are going to quote from somebody else, and not create an interpretation out of the words used previously.

You used the phrase “raging mob”, and I don't think I did hear that at all.

Mr. Grant McNally: No, I didn't say he said that, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering what his impression is of the Canadian public out there. That's what I'm wondering. I'm wondering if that's his impression of what the public is out there, if that's what he means. That's what I'm saying. If he wants to quibble about who said what and all that, he can check the blues later and correct that if he wants.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is why not go to these areas and let, as Mr. Benoit mentioned, people have an opportunity to say their piece? Is that not what we're about, as parliamentarians? Are we afraid to hear from individuals who would make a submission before a parliamentary committee? Do we think we have to limit who comes to say what?

That's the approach this committee had earlier in debate, when this bill was in the House, and with the reprehensible treatment that was shown when the minister was here, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I was appalled by that, and I'm appalled by this representation of not wanting to listen to the public. That is what we're here for: to listen to people.

I strongly support Mr. Benoit's idea, which merges the best of two ideas here: listening to experts and then having a controlled, orderly way for individuals to submit what they feel are their issues having to do with this bill.

The Chair: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I—

The Chair: Could we focus the debate on whether we should adopt the motion or not and avoid extending beyond that?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Well, let me just say that in all fairness, having dealt with second reading in the House, I dare say that 95% of the representation made by members of the official opposition—

An hon. member: Is this about the motion?

An hon. member: As much as your nonsense is.

The Chair: I'm trying to listen intently.

Please proceed.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Of the representation made, 95% had nothing to do with the citizenship bill before us, and I certainly am not in the mood for going across the country and having the Reform Party whip up some kind of hysteria surrounding issues that we're not dealing with.

Mr. Chair, I can tell you it was hard enough in the House to stay on topic in the debate. I invite anybody to read Hansard and they can see that while we were supposedly discussing a bill on citizenship, 95% of the Reform Party's representation was off topic.

• 1600

The Chair: Just to facilitate the process, the chair would like the help of everybody.

Are you then speaking in favour of travel or not, having heard the debate so far? Are you indicating your view at this point or not?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It depends on what the format would be if we were to undertake travel, and what kind of timeframe we would need for making the arrangements.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to say that what I've heard from the members of the official opposition seems to give the impression that there has been no previous consultation with the Canadian public on this bill, when we know in fact it is quite the opposite. We know the minister has gone back and forth across Canada for weeks on end listening to the Canadian public, consulting with groups and with individuals. I don't how many there were, but I understand they were very, very numerous. So I'd like to say I resent that the member gives that impression.

For that reason also, I would say I don't see the point of going across Canada once again asking the same kinds of questions about this bill. It's important that we get a feeling of how people react to this bill, but let's not forget that the minister went across the country with the former parliamentary secretary last year, and she has a very good idea of how the Canadian public feels. This is not the first time the Canadian public is going to be hearing about this bill.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I know Ms. Leung and Mr. Benoit would like to seize the floor, but perhaps I can prevail on you. You have expressed your sentiments and you know the likely concluded sentiments in your hearts. Perhaps we can put it to a vote to facilitate the process. What I'm hearing is engaging in debate, and it is part of our parliamentary process. If I can suggest—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to move an amendment to the motion, please.

The Chair: Proceed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to add, after “public hearings”, an expression of the process I laid out. It would read:

which would involve morning sessions, hearing from representatives from different interested groups set up by appointment, and afternoon and evening sessions that would be completely open to members of the public, where they could register before the meetings or during the meetings and have their say on this very important issue of citizenship,

Then carry on. The centres are fine.

I'd like to also, Mr. Speaker, delete the dates for now, and let's put in some reasonable dates for this process, because clearly March 17 to 26—

The Chair: No, excuse me. We are not on the dates yet. We are only on the first part.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It has a date on the bottom.

The Chair: I'm sorry; you're right.

You've heard the amendment. I would like to call the vote on the amendment. Debate has already commenced. The chair would like to put the vote on the amendment at this point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like a recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, a recorded vote.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: My colleagues were caucusing, so I don't think they heard the entire amendment.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The Liberals aren't really good at listening.

The Chair: Just a second, please. It is the duty of the clerk to read the amendment.

The Clerk: The amendment that Mr. Benoit has suggested would be, after “public hearings”, the words—and I don't have the exact wording—“enrolled in morning sessions and in evening sessions open to the public”.

The Chair: Excuse me. We cannot vote on a motion that is not definitive.

Can you please put the motion again?

The Clerk: Could you repeat it, please?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I move that we insert after “public hearings”:

which would involve morning sessions open to representatives from interested groups by appointment, and afternoon and evening sessions completely open to the public, where members of the public could register in the hour before the meetings or during the meetings and be allowed to have their say,

And then carry on. The six cities are fine. Then I'd like to delete the dates, and we'll insert the dates when we can get it organized.

• 1605

The Chair: Okay. You have heard the amendment to the sub-component of the report. I would like to put it to a vote. Are you ready for the vote?

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

The Chair: I'd now like to put the main motion to a vote, on item 1 as it stands without the amendment, the amendment having been lost.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can I ask a question before we have the vote on that?

It's been made pretty evident by Mr. Mahoney's intervention—and I think he's correct in this regard—that March 17 to 26 just isn't something that can be arranged. It's not realistic. What's the use of voting on this motion if it's unrealistic?

The Chair: Just a second. The amendment was put forward to change the date. That amendment was lost. We cannot revisit the amendment at this point.

The main motion now stands. If one feels that in light of the uncertainty of whether this date is feasible or not, and only for that reason, the motion should be defeated, then one can vote to defeat the motion at this stage. If having heard the debate, one would like to vote against it, one can vote against it. Having heard the debate, if one would like to vote for it, one can vote for it.

The vote has been called. I would like to put the motion to a vote.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the point Mr. Benoit has made, and I wonder if it would not be more appropriate to refer this matter back to the steering committee to allow for dates and alternative methods of holding public hearings to be investigated. I'm not in objection to holding hearings, but there is an alternative, and I wouldn't mind seeing the cost comparison of bringing the people to Ottawa, if indeed that's the appropriate way of doing it, if we're unable to schedule it. Then perhaps also the steering committee could look at all of the issues.

With all due respect, I know everyone is busy, but it seems to me this report cannot be supported from the point of view of either the dates or the cost without knowing the impact of other alternatives. So if it is appropriate, I would like to refer the matter back to the steering committee to investigate those options.

The Chair: The motion to refer back of course lies within the prerogative of the mother committee, and the motion to refer back is not debatable to my knowledge. So I would like to put it to a vote, if we can facilitate the process.

This is only on the first part. As we said, we have divided the parts. So now that component can go back to the steering committee as proposed by Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Grant McNally: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I was wondering if we could read that part of the motion for the record, so that we know exactly what it is.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, can you put that into words that say “refer back”?

Mr. Grant McNally: Are you just dropping the dates?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No. We agreed to deal with these in three different motions. The first motion is 1, which includes the dates and the cities. It does not include any of the format issues that Mr. Benoit talked about. I'm suggesting that the steering committee needs to do more homework in terms of dates, arrangements, and options. Perhaps it's possible to travel less extensively. Perhaps we can bring the Canadian people who wish to present to the committee to us, rather than our going to them, for substantially less money. I'm not proposing it. I'm asking that the steering committee take a look at that.

The Chair: So you have heard the motion to refer item 1 back to the steering committee. I shall put it to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1610

The Chair: It will be referred back to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

We now go to item 2. Who would like to speak to this motion?

As you may know, the steering committee in its wisdom decided to issue the invitation, in the interest of time, to these witnesses. I understand that they are now in the room.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we'd better approve.

The Chair: Well, if we do not approve the item, of course the witnesses will understand that we have to go through a process. We have to act on the basis of time.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, it is just unbelievable that the very day of a meeting, we are putting forth a motion to this committee to allow the meeting of that day to happen. That just shows that this committee isn't being guided by the chair the way it should be guided. We have to change that. We have to organize these meetings far enough ahead so that people can prepare properly and the witnesses have enough time to make it feasible for them.

I'm sure that under this kind of regime, many witnesses who would like to appear just won't be able to arrange it.

The Chair: Since you have directed the comments to the chair, the chair accepts responsibility. The chair has to exercise discretion and judgment. It is in my best judgment that the process of the study of the bill has to proceed in time. If the study of the bill is to proceed in time, the chair has to take a decision, in consultation with the clerk, that in the interest of time, we have to issue the invitation, because as you have seen, if we approve this, we will wait another day.

Since the witnesses are coming from Ottawa, we took the discretion to proceed. If you wish to vote against it, you may.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, Mr. Chair, that's not my point. My point is there seems to be a real lack of organization regarding this committee, and that's the responsibility of the government, the chair. Really we won't function well as a committee if we continue with this disorganized approach. We have to have meeting dates set and witnesses invited some time ahead, or it just isn't going to work. It isn't going to be productive.

The Chair: It will not work if a member of the steering committee, having been duly notified in days of a steering committee meeting, is absent without giving notice to the subcommittee that he would be absent. [...] perhaps if that can be changed, we can have an orderly process.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, I'd like to respond to that.

The Chair: Mr. Martin has the floor.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have the floor. He was recognizing me.

Mr. Leon Benoit: He mentioned me by name.

Mr. Pat Martin: He mentioned me. He said, “Mr. Martin, you have the floor.”

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Geez, I get sick of listening to this. I have never met such a petty group of people in my life. But that's not actually what I intervened to say.

Had the Reform Party been at the steering committee meeting, they would have been well aware, as I was, that today we were going to hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We knew that well in advance. We had time to do our preparation, if any was necessary. The guests are here today, as scheduled, waiting patiently to be heard by this committee. I would hope we could move forward, hear the presentation, and pass at least article 2 and article 3 of this report.

For the record, I am disappointed that number 1 was sent back to the committee, because it makes us feel a little—

Mr. Grant McNally: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, if you consult the standing orders, it's not in order to note the absence or the presence of members in the House of Commons, at committee, or at subcommittee meetings of any committee. That has gone on here.

Mr. Pat Martin: I said, “the Reform Party”. I didn't name anybody.

Mr. Grant McNally: No, you mentioned the member, and the chair mentioned the member.

The Chair: The chair acknowledges the rule, and I apologize. In the heat of debate—

Mr. Grant McNally: I move that that be stricken from the record, Mr. Speaker.

The Chair: It will be stricken.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Just to wrap up, I would hope we can pass article 2 and article 3 of the sixth report and move with the presentation without any further unnecessary interruption.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, do you still have a further comment to make?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I can't remember it now, Mr. Chair.

• 1615

The Chair: Are you ready for the vote?

Mr. Grant McNally: I was on the speaking list for the motion.

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have difficulties with the process as well. We have individuals here, and we're voting on whether or not we're going to be meeting with them. I don't understand that. I don't understand that process. It's setting the committee up to proceed in a manner in which we're basically being very rude if we don't proceed, because the witnesses are here. I hope this is isn't going to be the precedent for this committee. I'm just stating my objection to the procedural manner in which this has happened.

The Chair: The committee has heard the statements, and they have been noted.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, it seems to me if we're going to have this kind of game-playing at this committee, then we don't need a steering committee, particularly if the official opposition is not at that meeting.

An hon. member: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member violated the standing order again.

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we all understand, as members of many committees, that sometimes you have to work in a pragmatic way. Certainly we discussed this in the steering committee. The members are here. We're short of time as it is. It's now 4.17 p.m. This committee was supposed to get started at 3.30 p.m. We spent three-quarters of an hour on something that has given no results at all.

I move that we go forward, and I would ask the members of the opposition, the official opposition in particular—and I ask it politely—to be a bit more pragmatic. Certainly things don't always work out the way we want to, and I agree on that. I agree fundamentally on that. But we have to move forward and hear the people who have come here to give us their opinion.

The Chair: The chair would like to put item 2 to a vote.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Can we put item 3 to a vote, with the change moved by Mr. Martin?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sorry; what was the motion there?

The Chair: Item 3.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It's about paying the travelling costs.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, this motion is dependent on what happens at the steering committee and what decision the committee makes as a whole later on, is it not, in terms of whether we decide to travel or not?

An hon. member: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Grant McNally: Wasn't item 1 referred back to the steering committee?

The Chair: Yes, but the matter of expenses is independent of that.

Are you finished, Mr. McNally?

Mr. Grant McNally: I was just wondering if there might not be a better way to proceed, by going back to the steering committee with this and then coming back and making a motion as to what to do with whatever comes out of the steering committee and whatever we agree on.

The Chair: Well, if you would like to move that item 3 be referred back to the steering committee, that is your prerogative.

Mr. Grant McNally: I so move.

The Chair: So moved.

Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, there's a motion on the floor. It was seconded and it was being voted on when someone put another motion forward.

The Chair: Yes, I was halfway through calling for a vote. The chair would like to be flexible in light of the fact that he had indicated his wish to speak.

Mr. Pat Martin: When there's already a motion on the floor, I don't think you can introduce yet a new motion.

The Chair: But the motion is to refer the item back to the steering committee, so that is important.

Mr. Pat Martin: It's non-negotiable.

The Chair: Yes, it's in order.

Mr. Pat Martin: Then if I can interrupt for one second, we don't have the authorization to reimburse the guests we're going to hear later today, to compensate the guests who are here.

The Chair: No, no. We have a standing resolution, adopted on October 21, 1997, that would be confirmed by that resolution. This is only to modify that resolution in light of the wisdom of the steering committee, that we should amend it for the purposes of this set of witnesses henceforth.

Mr. Mahoney.

• 1620

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Can you tell us what the resolution adopted on October 21 says?

The Chair: It's to the effect that it would be living expenses and accommodation up to two, and the steering committee is recommending up to one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So you're reducing the number of people who would be covered.

The Chair: Yes.

So there is a motion to refer this back to the steering committee. I would like a vote on that, unless there is further debate on that.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Really there's only one other option, seeing as we have a standing order that allows payment for two people to travel, and we on the steering committee, trying to be frugal, said we're only going to pay for one to travel. We're now sending that back to the steering committee, which has only one option: to move it back up to two. We might as well do that right here, if what the Reform Party is getting at is that we're not being generous enough in only paying one individual. Can't we just do that here now and save some time? Let's pay for two people to travel.

The Chair: Before I give the floor to Mr. Benoit, I can anticipate that the difficulty we would have is this. If the original report from the steering committee is reconfirmed and it comes back here, and let us assume it is then adopted by the mother committee, the witnesses today would be covered by the previous and existing rule, because that would prevail. It cannot be retroactive.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's part of what I was going to say, Mr. Chair. The steering committee can decide to handle this in any way, but how can we pass this part of the motion when we have no idea what we're going to be doing with the money? How can you approve the expenditure of the money and a process without knowing whether we're going to have meetings, or if we are, what the format is going to be, and all that kind of thing? It makes it really difficult.

The Chair: If I may respond to that, the motion only relates to a formula of funding. It doesn't say anything about how many witnesses. We may conclude that we will have no more witnesses henceforth. It does not relate to the total number of witnesses. The formula is what we're voting on.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I don't see how item 3 relates to item 1. If item 1 came back with a suggestion that required bringing people in, then they would be paid for under the existing resolution, which would allow for two people, or they would be paid for under the new resolution, which would allow for one person. But that could be true of anything this committee does. This is a broad issue; it's not related to the specific request to travel or the referral back to the steering committee.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney is right.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I disagree, Mr. Chair. If we decide on a format where we have real public hearings and we have members of the public coming in, able to register on the spot that they would like to take part, and if we had a large number coming in from outside the city one by one, we could end up with an incredible expenditure. Most of these people I'm sure would come without being reimbursed, but certainly that could happen here.

So I don't see how we can vote on this until we know the process that we're going to—

The Chair: So you're arguing to refer this back to the steering committee?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Exactly.

The Chair: Okay. I call the vote on this being referred back to the steering committee for purpose of process.

An hon. member: Could we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: Yes.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 2)

The Chair: So the motion to refer is lost. I shall now call the vote on the motion itself, resolution number 3.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd like a recorded vote on this too.

The Chair: Recorded vote.

• 1625

For the guidance of the members, were we to adopt this motion, it would mean we are suspending the existing resolution of October 21 and limiting the expenses to reimbursement to only one witness per group.

An hon. member: Instead of two.

The Chair: Instead of two, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Can I get some clarification, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It says “one representative of an organization”. Could I get a definition of “organization”? Again, if we go to the public hearing format, where we'll have people who aren't members of any organization possibly, then how do we deal with that? We're prejudging the outcome of the motion that has been put back to the steering committee.

The Chair: Where the witness is an individual, the formula does not apply, and therefore the individual is reimbursed for his individual expense. That is clear.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How is that person a member of an organization?

The Chair: Well, no, if he comes as a member of an organization, then he will be dealt with as a representative of that organization.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then does the chair want to put that in the motion?

The Chair: I think it is commonly understood that if one comes as an individual, not representing any association, even if the person is a member of some other association, he will be dealt with by the committee for this purpose as an individual.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But in this motion, as it reads, there is really no way to accommodate—

The Chair: There is. In fact the individual is always one, unless we say “individuals”. Therefore, since we are limiting this to one instead of two.... In an organization, you can have two representatives, two individuals coming. This proposed recommendation is to limit it to payment for one, as with any other single individual. The rule is very clear.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To me, this definitely limits it to reimbursing a member of an organization.

The Chair: Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Since we're discussing the contents of this motion, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I'm very surprised that the member of the opposition seems to be wanting only one representative to be reimbursed. Considering what he said earlier, that he wants as many people to come before this committee—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I didn't say that.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: If we go back to the original article 3, which is that two people will be reimbursed in each organization, this automatically means more people can appear before this committee, because two people in each organization will be able to afford to appear before this committee.

I just wanted to make that point. Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I would like the member to clarify which member of the opposition said that. I never heard a member of the opposition say that. It certainly wasn't my point.

The Chair: Would the member care to clarify or let it stand as debate?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: That's what I heard, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay.

Again, for greater clarity, were we to vote for this item, we would be amending the existing resolution to only allow reimbursement for one coming from any organization; otherwise we will be reimbursing two.

The vote.

The Clerk: Mr. Benoit has asked for a recorded vote.

The Chair: Yes.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 0)

The Chair: I will now, with your indulgence, proceed to—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I have a motion that I want to move. I want to hear the witnesses, and I don't want to interfere in the hearing of the witnesses, but this is a very important motion and it shouldn't take long, if we can just deal with it quickly.

My motion is that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity on two separate occasions, no later than March 25, 1999, to address part III of the estimates and the performance reviews of the department for the fiscal year 1998-99.

• 1630

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a point of order.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could I finish a little bit of a statement on that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I have a point of order. It's up to the chair.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney, go ahead, please.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chair, perhaps you can help me with this. It's my understanding that there's a requirement to give notice of placing a motion such as this.

The Chair: Yes, that's my recollection.

The clerk advises me that in this committee there is no 48-hour notice.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could you clarify that?

The Chair: There is no notice required. But I would like to say that I did read the order of the day, so I am in a quandary. We are proceeding with the order of the day, including the hearing of witnesses. If I can prevail on Mr. Benoit, I would say that we will receive it as a notice of motion and then be allowed to hear the witnesses.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, there's a motion on the floor, Mr. Chair.

I would like to explain why I'm making this motion.

The Chair: No, Mr. Benoit. You have given the motion, and as I've said, if it is a notice of motion, then we will start hearing the explanation at the time of the motion.

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, it's not a notice of motion; it's a motion. I have moved a motion, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Proceed, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The reason I'm making this motion, Mr. Chair, is that before Christmas, we had the minister before committee. The very unfortunate death of Ms. Cohen occurred right at that time, and we agreed to postpone because of that, out of respect. The minister promised that she would be back at committee at the earliest possibility to deal with the performance—

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, the chair sees no relevance of this motion to the order of day, and I would suggest that this is out of order. The members can challenge the ruling of the chair.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You say there's no relevance in the motion? Is that it?

The Chair: It is interfering with the order of the day. The chair has given the interpretation that when you have a bill before you, you should proceed with the bill over all other items. We have read the order of the day, and we have adopted the agenda to hear the witnesses before us. The witnesses are here. Now we would be debating a motion. The chair rules that this is out of order, but the ruling of the chair can be challenged by any member.

An hon. member: We have to vote on that.

Mr. Grant McNally: There's a motion on the floor, Mr. Chair. You accepted the motion duly. How can it be removed?

An hon. member: The motion was out of order.

Mr. Grant McNally: Whenever it's time to debate it, I'll debate it.

The Chair: Those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the chair?

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Chair, I'm not totally up on all the parliamentary language yet. My understanding was that I was going to debate this point.

The Chair: No. The chair has ruled. I cannot see a notice of motion's complete relevance or irrelevance until I have heard most of the components with which to make my judgment. Having heard the components now, the chair makes a ruling that the motion is irrelevant to the order of the day and so rules it out of order at this point.

I have called it. I have advised the committee that the ruling of the chair may be challenged. That ruling now has been put to a vote. Six have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.

Those opposed to the ruling of the chair?

Seeing no hands raised, I deem the ruling of the chair sustained.

(Chair's ruling upheld)

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Chair, resulting from the last meeting. During my questioning of the minister, I was interrupted by the chair on several occasions, about half a dozen occasions. I was also interrupted by members of the Liberal Party across the way on several occasions. I believe my ability to function properly in this committee was in fact interfered with by the members opposite and by the chair.

• 1635

And it's not just the interruptions. It was also the fact that on at least five occasions—and if you look at the video of this, you'll see it—the chair took my question that I presented to the minister and reinterpreted the question.

The Chair: There is no point of privilege raised. I shall call the order of the day.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, what would you consider that? If a point of privilege isn't the proper way to go on this, is it a point of order?

The Chair: It is not a point of order. It is not a point of privilege. I shall call the order of the day. Call the witnesses, please.

Before us, members of the committee, are witnesses from the Canadian Bar Association: Mr. Stephen Green, executive member of the national citizenship and immigration section; and Tamra Thomson, director, legislation and law reform. I would like to invite the witnesses to please make their opening statements.

I apologize. As you may have seen, that was an exercise in parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Green and Ms. Thomson.

Ms. Tamra Thomson (Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members. The Canadian Bar Association is pleased to have the honour of appearing before this committee today.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 35,000 jurists across Canada. Amongst the association's primary objectives are the improvement of the law and improvement in the administration of justice. It is in that light that we make our comments to this committee today.

I see the clerk is distributing the executive summary of the brief of the national citizenship and immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association. In order to facilitate the speed with which it was indicated to us the committee wishes to deal with this bill, we have prepared a brief. Unfortunately, with the time delays, we have only been able to prepare it to date in English. We will be providing you with the French version of that brief as soon as we can. To facilitate your discussions today, we have made the executive summary available in English and French.

With me today is Mr. Stephen Green, who is a member of the citizenship and immigration law section. His practice is in Toronto as a specialist in immigration law. I will ask him to address the substantive issues in our brief.

Mr. Stephen Green (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Section, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, today I plan to deal with four issues that we would like to bring forward to this committee on this proposed bill. The issues are adoption, residence, revocation of citizenship, and the transitional provisions.

The Canadian Bar Association very much supports the minister with respect to the granting of citizenship to children who are adopted by Canadian citizens abroad. I want to reinforce that we support this proposal. However, we would like to draw to your attention some areas of concern.

First, officers who are abroad at various embassies and high commissions should be granted the authority to grant citizenship to an adopted child of a Canadian citizen, as they are the best experts to determine whether or not this adoption is appropriate. However, we have a great concern when a decision is made negatively with respect to whether or not this adoption is appropriate.

More specifically, if a visa officer determines that this adoption is not appropriate and therefore cannot grant citizenship to this particular child, the only remedy available to the Canadian citizen who is adopting that child is to go to the Federal Court of Canada to review that decision.

• 1640

However, a permanent resident of Canada who is trying to adopt a child and bring that child to Canada would go through the sponsorship provisions of the Immigration Act and would have many more rights under the Immigration Act. Under section 77 of the Immigration Act, the permanent resident could go ahead and argue all the circumstances of the case and that this adoption is appropriate, and the Immigration Appeal Board could look at that.

So what would happen in essence then is that a Canadian citizen who would be adopting a child abroad would do the appropriate citizenship process to do that, but would also sponsor that child, so you would have duplicity in the system to protect the rights of the sponsoring person, or the Canadian citizen.

In order to stop this duplicity, we propose that if an adoption is not accepted overseas for citizenship purposes, then that Canadian citizen be able to go before the Immigration Appeal Board as opposed to going to the Federal Court. Therefore that would save us money, meaning the applicant wouldn't have to pay twice and we would not have to go through the court system. So there's a tremendous saving in that particular situation.

Also, the bill proposes that only adoptions that occur after the coming into force of this act will be accepted with respect to the granting of citizenship for Canadian citizens. We don't understand why that limit is being put into the system.

My last two concerns deal with the actual wording of clause 8 of the bill. It states—and we don't have problems with this particular part—that an adoption must occur according to the law of where this adoption is occurring. For example, if it were in India or China, it would have to follow the law of those particular countries. But then it goes on to state that it must also be in accordance with the laws of the country of residence of the adopting citizen.

So if I, being a Canadian citizen, were adopting a child from India, I would have to meet the Indian adoption laws, which we don't have a problem with, but I would also have to meet the laws of Canada. Canada does not have laws on adoptions. It's a provincial matter. So we don't understand why it says “country of residence”. It doesn't make sense to us.

Furthermore, if a permanent resident sponsors a child who is adopted to come to Canada, and if that sponsorship is approved and the child receives permanent resident status and then applies for Canadian citizenship with the family, that citizenship officer is obligated to look at the adoption again, according to this proposed bill. They have to make sure it was in accordance with the laws of this country, whatever that means. We don't think it is appropriate that that should happen twice. It's not necessary.

Those are my comments with respect to adoption.

My next topic is residency. As I am sure many of you are aware, this proposed bill defines residency to mean physical presence in Canada. We do not agree with that proposition. We certainly agree that the citizenship act with respect to residency should make sure that all applicants for citizenship understand the rights and responsibilities of becoming a citizen, but we don't see the correlation between physically residing here and that conclusion.

We think it will hurt business very much in Canada. It will lock business people in Canada. It will not promote business. It will force people to stay here and not expand on the global markets that are very much active in this country. It will also inhibit scholars. Scholars will have to think, “Do I want to study abroad to get an education? If I do and I am a landed immigrant or permanent resident of Canada, then I won't be able to get my citizenship.” So we are very concerned about this requirement of physical presence.

• 1645

What we propose with respect to the residency requirements in Canada is a three-tiered system. Much of it exists today and is working quite well today.

We propose that those individuals who are physically present in Canada will write a citizenship test and go through the normal procedure as it exists today. I commend the department that it is working very well with respect to that. That's tier one.

Tier two, we propose that an “ordinarily resident” test be adopted, similar to the definition found in the Income Tax Act of Canada and in other acts of Canada. We submit that it works. It allows an individual who wishes to study abroad or a business person who wishes to go abroad to obtain their citizenship if they can demonstrate that they are ordinarily resident, by filing their income tax, being part of the community, and those types of things.

Our third tier we call our “compelling reasons” tier. As the present act exists today, the minister does not have the authority to waive, on compelling reasons, the residency requirements. She must make a recommendation to the Governor in Council. Only the Governor in Council can do that. We recommend and support that the minister should have that authority to waive the residency requirements if she deems it appropriate. It doesn't exist now.

Many people may tell you it's difficult to determine the “ordinarily resident” test. We don't think so, but to solve that problem, what we are proposing in our tier three system, the “compelling reasons” tier, is this. If a landed immigrant is able to obtain a returning resident permit—which is a document issued by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to a landed immigrant who wishes to travel—before that person gets that document, they must demonstrate to an immigration officer that they don't intend to abandon Canada as their place of residence.

The issuance of this returning resident permit would be able to facilitate a business person or scholar travelling abroad and yet protect them with respect to getting their citizenship. It would be easy to calculate, because the department would see that a returning resident permit was issued for seven months or eight months for business purposes or for scholarly purposes. It would be easy. It would not be a problem.

So to summarize then with respect to residence, we certainly support the written test system. We would like to see and support an “ordinarily resident” definition being adopted. If that is not possible, at least grant the minister the authority to waive the residency requirements in compelling circumstances, those being studying abroad, business purposes, and things such as that. That could be calculated through the issuance of a returning resident permit.

My next topic is revocation. Under the proposed bill, there is a process for revoking Canadian citizenship. The difficulty we see with this clause is the derivative revocation that is permitted under this act.

What do I mean? Say I am a landed immigrant with a dependent child and we apply for Canadian citizenship. Say I get my citizenship, my dependent child gets citizenship, the years go by, and it's determined for some reason that I obtained my citizenship improperly. I get my citizenship revoked. Then according to this proposed bill, so would my dependent child, who had no intent in this, if there is intention—who really is innocent in this. Perhaps my dependent child married someone from outside Canada and sponsored that person to come to Canada.

• 1650

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a cutoff. It can go on, derivative dependants, for a long time. So we submit that it should not apply to a dependant of a person who has obtained their citizenship and then had it revoked as a result of this act.

Finally, in the revocation provision, we are very concerned that in order to prove that revocation is appropriate, the balance of probabilities test is used in the Federal Court. We do not believe that is appropriate. It should be beyond a reasonable doubt, as in many other very serious matters, and I submit to you that citizenship certainly is a very serious matter.

Next are the transitional provisions. The present bill proposed here states that when this bill becomes law, anybody in the system who has not been dealt with will fall under the new act. So if you are a person who has been travelling for schooling or if you are a business person, your case will be automatically refused. It's not appropriate, we submit. We submit that substantive rights would be taken away from people if this act came in with the transitional provisions. And we believe it would not stand up in court if it were challenged, because of the substantive rights that are being taken away from people.

It applies with respect to the knowledge requirement as well. Right now an individual is permitted to use the assistance of an interpreter to express that they understand the rights and responsibilities of becoming a Canadian citizen. If this proposed bill came into force, then those people would be automatically refused if they were using an interpreter to explain their knowledge of Canada.

We submit that it is wrong. It takes away rights from people, and it would vary from city to city, centre to centre, because there are larger backlogs in the city of Toronto and in Vancouver than perhaps in Halifax or Winnipeg. So maybe those cases would be dealt with more quickly and wouldn't fall into the transitional provisions. I don't think we want to treat people differently with respect to the transitional provisions.

Those are my comments on the proposed bill.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Green. Now we will proceed to questioning.

Mr. Benoit, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Green and Ms. Thomson.

My first question has to do with adopting children abroad. Your first point is that some problems have arisen because parents wouldn't be allowed to sponsor as they can now. The second is that you really don't support the requirement that adoption be in accordance with the law of the country, because there are no adoption laws; they're provincial jurisdiction of course. If that's the only concern you have about that, if an amendment were made to the legislation saying that you'd have to meet the laws of the appropriate province, would that not deal with that concern?

Mr. Stephen Green: A Canadian citizen still has the absolute right to sponsor and adopt a child. So if this provision comes into force, they will have two choices. As a barrister, I would suggest to my clients that they apply for citizenship and apply for sponsorship, because if the application is refused, you have more rights if it is a sponsorship as opposed to Canadian citizenship. So that exists.

As for my response with respect to country of residence, you are correct that there are no laws Canada-wide for adoptions. However, I would submit that it is a provincial matter and should not be in there at all. We should not deal with whether or not it meets the requirements of the provincial adoption laws. That is something for the province, not for the Department of Citizenship.

You should know that now, if the province is asked to comment on adoptions abroad, at least in the province of Ontario, you receive a letter saying they can't comment, because they don't know and because the child is not a resident. That's a requirement under the Ontario adoption laws. For the court to take jurisdiction of an adoption, the child must be resident here, and by definition, the child is not here.

• 1655

Mr. Leon Benoit: So if the legislation were to pass as it is now, with the stipulation that you have to meet the laws of Canada to do with adoption, what would happen then?

Mr. Stephen Green: I would submit that it's ultra vires. I don't know, as a citizenship officer or a visa officer, how to interpret this. There's no interpretation. There are no laws.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How could it find its way into legislation then? You would think the department would have been careful in drafting this legislation.

Mr. Stephen Green: I'm sure the department was very careful, because I believe it's taken 10 years to get this far. I don't know. Maybe it's covered in the French. I don't know; I can't comment on that. But at least in the English version, I can comment that it is not. I believe it would be ultra vires.

Mr. Leon Benoit: When we have the officials before the committee, I'll ask them the same question and see if they have an answer.

In regard to the residency requirement, the requirement being proposed is that there is physical presence in Canada.

Mr. Stephen Green: Correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There are a couple of things about that. No longer would half of the time, up to six months, from the time you apply for permanent residency to the time you might be granted that, be included in counting the required number of days for residency, which is three years, roughly. Is that one of the concerns you're expressing here?

You're saying that should be one of the determining things. In other words, if you meet this requirement that you be here in Canada physically three years out of the five, it's okay to have that as one of the requirements. Then you're also proposing that you could meet either of two other proposals to meet the conditions.

My question is, if you do have as you propose, how are things going to change in practical application in terms of some of the problems that have arisen? For example, courts or the citizenship department have actually ruled that if you have a bank account in the country, “Well, I guess that means you're a resident”, or if you own property in the country, “Well, I guess you're a resident”, when in fact these people may not have resided in the country at all. These things have happened.

I would think the changes being proposed are meant to deal with that. If you amend the proposed legislation the way you're proposing, then aren't we getting back to exactly the same problems the minister is trying to eliminate?

Mr. Stephen Green: To comment on this idea that people have bank accounts and they don't live here and they get their citizenship, I submit to you that is not correct.

What happens under the present system is that someone appears before a citizenship judge, and the citizenship judge determines whether or not the person is a resident of Canada. He or she will look at all of these factors, and if the citizenship judge is satisfied, then they grant citizenship.

Yes, there was perhaps misguidance by many, with all respect to the citizenship judges, in some of those decisions. However, the department now has taken a very positive step. When they feel there is an incorrect decision, they appeal that decision. Prior to about a year and a half ago, there were maybe five or six appeals of those types of decisions. Now the department takes a very aggressive stand and has permitted the Federal Court to define the law better. So that system now has been fixed, I would submit to you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is your answer then that yes, in fact the changes you propose would pretty much move things back to the way they are under the existing legislation that's in place right now?

Mr. Stephen Green: What I'm proposing is that there be three systems. One, if the person lives here all the time, we don't have a problem with that. But the ordinarily resident test is not an ordinarily resident test. We're saying adopt an ordinarily resident test. Define that, perhaps from the Income Tax Act, and use that. It is very open-ended now; it just says “residence”. We're saying “ordinarily resident”, based on the Income Tax Act or something such as that. That would have to be developed.

• 1700

But to take the black and white situation—“You're out of the country; you don't qualify”—I submit that that is going to tremendously hurt Canada, because we are going to stop international business. It should be a qualitative decision. Is this person ordinarily resident because they are going for Canadian purposes for their business or to study, to be a scholar?

Look at the quality. There's no relief in this provision of this bill for that. It's, “No, you don't.” The number of people we're talking about is so small, and we are, I would submit, hurting the ones we really don't want to hurt.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In fact, if these changes were made, wouldn't that make a lot of work for a lot of lawyers?

Mr. Stephen Green: It's the exact opposite, quite candidly, because if this is accepted, basically you fill in a form and you pass or you don't pass. Canada loses, because the international business person can't qualify any more.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that, and I've heard that concern from people who are involved on a regular basis with immigration. I understand that concern. I've heard both sides of this issue.

I need some more information from you, if you have it, as to how you actually see the second and third proposals working. What would you use to guide you? You said the Income Tax Act possibly. If we could get a little more clarification on that, it would be helpful. I'd like to see that, if you have it.

Mr. Stephen Green: I would submit that it's in the brief and you can refer to that.

It would be very easy to calculate the people who are outside Canada on returning resident permits, which are issued based on intention. That's easy. It wouldn't create any work for lawyers either, because it's a numerical calculation, but it permits a business person or scholar to travel, and the department is scrutinizing that.

Say I go to an immigration officer and say, “I wish to study at MIT to further my education so that I can come back to Canada and become a better business person”. They say, “Fine. Here is a returning resident permit that we will grant you to study abroad for a year and a half.” Then I apply for citizenship, I fill out the form, and it says, “You've been granted this returning resident permit for a year and a half. We understand that you satisfied an immigration officer that you didn't intend to abandon Canada. We will count that time in our calculation.”

Mr. Leon Benoit: So in theory you could have a person who hasn't spent more than a day in Canada achieve citizenship.

Mr. Stephen Green: You couldn't, because they wouldn't have a returning resident permit. Hopefully the Department of Citizenship would say, “If you're not here, we're not going to give you a returning resident permit. We want to see those ties, that connection to Canada.”

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank Ms. Thomson and Mr. Green for their presentation.

You've answered some questions, and there's one that I was pleased you raised, on the number of people the department felt needed to have their application appealed since the passing of the act. I think the number you used was five or six. So of all those people who have applied for citizenship over the duration and application of this act, in the estimation of the department and the minister, five or six were deemed to be, until a year and a half ago, inconsistent with the intent of the legislation. Did I understand you correctly?

Mr. Stephen Green: Perhaps you can get the exact statistics from the department, but from my experience, up until....

What happened is the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration sent down a memo to the citizenship offices stating that as of June 1998, I believe, if any applicant for Canadian citizenship who is approved by a citizenship judge has a majority of time outside Canada, then that file, despite the fact that a citizenship judge has approved it, would go to case management in Ottawa, and case management would make a determination as to whether or not that case should be appealed. I can submit to you that a very proactive position has been taken by the department to appeal cases now, as opposed to before that memo came in.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Green, I give you the number four, because it's the number the department gave me. It's not substantially different from the number you suggested to the committee.

• 1705

What transpired prior to June of last year—it was actually August—that caused the department to recommend to the minister that she cause case management to challenge all those who had days of absence in excess of half? That would give us a majority. What transpired? Do you know?

Mr. Stephen Green: I really don't have any answer for that, but a memo was sent down. I have no answer as to why they decided to do it. I don't know.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Let me ask you something else. I'm sure you don't have such clients, but say someone came to ask any barrister for counsel on filling out an application for citizenship, and as you're filling out this application, you note that the individual has gone substantially over the number of days one might consider as being ordinarily resident in Canada. How would the department or how would the citizenship officer know that your applicant was telling the truth about the number of days listed as being absent from Canada?

Mr. Stephen Green: The department right now has no system available to determine your ins and outs. However, my understanding is that they do have it with one particular country, and that is China, more specifically Hong Kong, where there is an agreement that they are able to check ins and outs with respect to that. You'd have to confirm that, but you can get an in-and-out record from Hong Kong. That's all I know of. Canada does not control entries and exits.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: So if I were such an applicant, for example, whether I came from Hong Kong or not—and I don't, so I'll say I didn't come from Hong Kong—and if I thought it was just an inconvenience to go and explain the days I've been out of the country, there really is no way for anybody to check on whether I've actually been out of the country.

Mr. Stephen Green: No, there is no way.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: So it's not a problem then, because the department didn't notice that there was a problem to address. Is that a conclusion I should draw?

Mr. Stephen Green: I don't know. My concern is that if—

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Green, I listened carefully when you were speaking, and you were being very diplomatic. I'm just wondering what causes people to think there was a problem, if the only people who can be contested are those who tell the truth about their absentees.

Mr. Stephen Green: That's right. The only people who are contested now are the truthful ones, and under this system that is proposed, I don't know the answer.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I guess I'm in a little bit of a quandary. If you want honest people in this country and they come forward, knowing that they're going to be putting themselves at a disadvantage, and if those are the ones you hunt down, what message are you delivering them?

Mr. Stephen Green: Correct.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I'm confused about it, actually.

On the question of ordinarily resident, you referred to the Income Tax Act, and I believe you referred to another act as well. The Income Tax Act says if you are ordinarily resident in this country, you're liable to taxation on income earned here, and by the way, earned abroad as well. So if you earn money by going some other place but you are deemed to be ordinarily resident here, the Government of Canada and the province in which you reside have access to a portion of your income. Is that a fair assessment?

Mr. Stephen Green: That's a perfect assessment. It's a win-win situation for Canada, because they are required to file tax based on worldwide income.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: So under at least the Income Tax Act, someone who files income tax and pays income tax to the province and to the federal authority must be indicating at the very least a willingness to comply with legislation in the country, an understanding of obligations in the country, an understanding of duties of citizens, and perhaps even a commitment to the country by virtue of declaring income. Would that be a fair assessment so far?

Mr. Stephen Green: You're doing very well.

• 1710

Mr. Joseph Volpe: If you were the citizenship court judge and you had before you an honest individual who gave you an indication of absences from the country that in the view of some—probably nobody around this table, but in the view of some—might seem excessive, but they filed their income tax, they paid these taxes, they showed commitment to the country, and they might even, as Mr. Benoit suggests, have purchased a residence, what would you do?

Mr. Stephen Green: As I say, it's the way it's supposed to work. I would submit to you that that person has learned the obligations and the rights of citizenship. But tax should not be the only requirement. You have to look at the quality of this person's connection to Canada.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: I understand that, and you've indicated now that at least by paying taxes and buying a residence here, that's an expression of quality. Understanding how the system works in Canada is another expression of quality, as is being involved in the community.

People get involved in the community in a variety of ways. One of course is to support charitable organizations, community groups, and social groups, and to actually come out and be present for some of those things. I think there's enumeration of them in the act. That would constitute quality, would it not?

Mr. Stephen Green: Absolutely.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Because not all Canadians are involved on a volunteer basis with all of those other issues.

Mr. Stephen Green: Correct.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Does this legislation improve the quality of those people who have come before the courts and given honestly an indication of both their absence and their contribution to the country? Does this legislation improve on that?

Mr. Stephen: It does the exact opposite, in my submission. It says to me, if I want to get Canadian citizenship, I know I have to physically reside here. If I have business commitments or scholarly commitments, I know I can't get my citizenship, so I know I'm not going to be involved. If I'm not considered a resident for citizenship purposes, why should I be a resident for tax purposes? It does the exact opposite and sends out the message: Don't.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Green, students are being recruited by colleges and universities in the Toronto area—Seneca College, to name one, and University of Toronto. Some of these students come here because those institutions tell them that if they complete their study here and then apply for permanent residence, subsequent to receiving that permanent residency, when the three-year period comes up, they can apply for citizenship. But in their case, because they will have lived here for at least a year prior, or maybe more, the act currently allows for the citizenship court to consider up to one year prior to the granting of PR as part of the three-year period. What does this legislation do to that?

Mr. Stephen Green: Mr. Volpe, this legislation eliminates that, and it goes counter to all policy. I don't understand the rationale for it. It makes no sense to us, and we've submitted that in our brief as well. We don't know why they are penalizing students, because it seems to provide us with what we want. We want students who are involved here—

Mr. Joseph Volpe: What would happen to the recruitment?

Mr. Stephen Green: I don't know how it would affect recruitment, but it just goes counter to everything that I think we, as citizens, want. It may hurt recruitment, absolutely. It may send a message out to students.

The Chair: Mr. Volpe, I have to interrupt you.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Joseph Volpe: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. How much time do I have?

The Chair: Five minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: We don't get much time, we fourth opposition parties.

I'll ask you a couple of questions, and then maybe you could answer them all at once to save time.

The first comment I have is about the loss of citizenship at age 28. I'm wondering if you would agree that it's raised a problem. What will be the status of a person who loses their citizenship under this provision? If they're living in Canada, upon reaching age 28, do they automatically revert to being a permanent resident? Or do they become a stateless citizen? Or do they get kicked out of the country? All of which I find discomforting. That's one question.

The second is, you mentioned the derivative revocation of citizenship being an issue. I agree. I'm wondering if you have any ideas on what kind of amendment might relieve your concern and our concern. It's our position that this could cause innocent persons to become stateless, again, and some kind of exception should be added to prevent that possibility.

• 1715

The other thing—and it's probably all we'll have time for—is that paragraph 28(c) deals with foreign criminal actions and ineligibility for citizenship. I have real problems here. What if the other country's judicial system is known to be corrupt or unfair? For example, a refugee from some regime could have his or her application blocked by some trumped-up charges. I mean, Nelson Mandela wouldn't qualify for citizenship in Canada that way, if the apartheid regime were still in power in South Africa. I'd ask for your comments on that.

The last thing is something you mentioned as well, the transition phase. I'm concerned about the handling of any pending applications. What would your opinion be on how to handle pending applications?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I hear the bells going, Mr. Chair. Before the witnesses are dismissed, I would really like to request that we have them back again. It's been unfair that we haven't had enough time to really—

The Chair: Your submission has been heard.

Proceed.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is the meeting automatically finished when the bells start ringing?

The Chair: We still have 15 minutes. Proceed. Do you want to conclude your questions?

Mr. Pat Martin: Can I have back the time Mr. Benoit took out of mine?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I'll stop there and ask if you can answer some of those.

Mr. Stephen Green: I'll answer very quickly.

On the issue of loss of citizenship, actually it occurs if you're not in Canada by age 25. If you're 25 years and one month, by the time you're 28, you will lose your citizenship. I don't know what your status will be in Canada. I would assume stateless. I don't know the answer to that question. It's silent. I can't comment on that.

With respect to the derivative loss of citizenship or revocation, I don't think it should be included in the act. It's inappropriate. Gone, delete.

With respect to paragraph 28(c) on prohibitions, I believe they pulled that from the Immigration Act. It's similar in our present Immigration Act. There has to be an equivalency issue. We don't agree with it, but it shouldn't....

On the transitional provision, there should be a grandfather clause that anyone who has filed their application for Canadian citizenship on or before the proclamation of this act should be entitled to the substantive rights that existed under the old legislation.

Mr. Pat Martin: Good. I still have a minute left.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Oh, good. That was really quick. Maybe I could ask you about the oath of citizenship. That was one thing that was raised—

Mr. Stephen Green: I can save you the time. We don't have any comment on the oath.

Mr. Pat Martin: You're satisfied with the idea of the changes that were put forward.

Mr. Stephen Green: I have no comment on that.

But if I may add something to one of your questions, there is the serious issue that it seems preference is given to foreign service officers. If I am a Canadian citizen and I have a spouse and I'm a foreign service officer, or if I work for the Canadian government as a public servant, or if I work for the Ontario or any provincial government, I have the right for my spouse, who is a landed immigrant, to count that time.

As a Canadian, I would want to know why we are giving the benefit to anyone who is a government employee, be it provincial or federal. I don't know the answer to that. It's inappropriate. Perhaps it's recognizing the commitment Canadians make abroad, and that's why we're letting their spouses count the time. So we're recognizing for certain groups of people, but not for others. That's in subclause 6(2).

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Shepherd.

An hon. member: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, that's the 15-minute bell. We don't want to miss the vote.

The Chair: Yes, we have 10 minutes to go. We will conclude with Mr. Shepherd, please.

An hon. member: We have even less than 10 minutes. I want to leave for the vote, Mr. Chair. Could we just deal with the issue of having these witnesses back?

The Chair: Mr. Shepherd, please.

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): You talked about the oath of citizenship. I had some other questions, and I heard you saying you don't want to talk about that, but you spent a lot of time in your dissertation talking about the residency requirement. How consistent is it that we then turn around and ask people to swear an oath to a sovereign who's not resident?

Mr. Stephen Green: As I said, I have no comment. I can't comment on that.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: Okay. My other question is this. You talked about time while outside Canada and presumably meeting some kind of test of being in Canada's best interests. Yet we already heard that we can't even tell when people are in and out of this country. How do we determine that their activities are in the best interests of Canada?

• 1720

Mr. Stephen Green: Under the present system, you give the people the opportunity to show that it's in the best interests of Canada, because they can say, “I've been outside Canada because I am a business person, and I employ 15 people here”, or “I'm the president of a multinational company and I go around the world for various meetings”. I can express that to you. I can show how I have assisted my multinational company, how I have created employment, how I have been involved in charities through my company.

You have that opportunity now. You won't, because it's irrelevant, under this proposed legislation.

Mr. Alex Shepherd: But it would have to have a business application.

Mr. Stephen Green: It would apply to scholars, to business people, to musicians. If you're a musician and you want to go play around the world and promote music, you will have a problem getting your citizenship. Céline Dion, if she were a permanent resident who wanted to go around and do concerts for six or seven months a year, could never become a citizen under this act. Is that what we want?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Shepherd.

We still have four minutes left. The chair would like to adjourn the meeting at this point.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, could we deal with the issue of having these witnesses back?

The Chair: Well, okay. I think it is a given that they can come for the first half an hour, I suppose, if we can have a consensus.

Oh, Mr. Green is from Toronto. We will revisit that request, Leon, later on. We have two witnesses already scheduled tomorrow.

Mr. Stephen Green: I'm certainly willing to come back, but tomorrow morning is a problem.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you so much.

The meeting is adjourned until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning.